Translate

Public Stats

Sunday, October 14, 2007

New Zealand has elected its first openly lesbian mayor after Jenny Rowan won the race to head the Kapiti Coast District Council, north of Wellington.

A former commissioner in the Environment Court, Rowan was mayor of Inglewood from 1986 to 1989 and came out as a lesbian at that time.

"This is the second time I've been in public office," she said. "The difference is that this time I've been elected as an 'out' lesbian."

~ Sunday Star Times, front page

Well, as a voter in the Kapiti Coast District, I can say that I had absolutely no idea Jenny Rowan was an 'out' lesbian. Had I known she was a lesbian, I would not have put her down at number 2 on my voting form. As she never campaigned using "vote for me, I'm a lesbian", I wouldn't be surprised if many other Kapiti voters also had no idea. I also would not be surprised if she only lasts one term.

UPDATE 2: It seems a number of people are confused with my position here. There have been equivalences made with homosexuals and Jews, and homosexuals and "Negroes" on David Farrar's blog. This attempt at equivalence is ridiculous. A person cannot change their race, while as any person can live in celibacy. Having sex of any type therefore becomes a choice.

Through the period of the Fathers and into the Middle Ages Catholic teaching consistently held that homosexual acts are immoral. In the teaching of St. Thomas we see an important development. In the Summa Theologiae, II, II, Q. 154, art. 18, Thomas takes up the question whether homosexual acts are the worst among the sins of lust. After raising the customary objections he comes to his conclusion. His teaching would be significant for the Catholic understanding of why homosexual acts are sinful and disordered:

Augustine says (De adult. conjug.) [14] that “of all these,” namely the sins belonging to lust, “that which is against nature is the worst.”

I answer that, In every genus, worst of all is the corruption of the principle on which the rest depend. Now the principles of reason are those things that are according to nature, because reason presupposes things as determined by nature, before disposing of other things according to what is fitting. This may be observed both in speculative and in practical matters. Wherefore just as in speculative matters the most grievous and shameful error is that which is about things the knowledge of which is naturally bestowed on man, so in matters of action it is most grave and shameful to act against things as determined by nature. Therefore, since by the unnatural vices man transgresses that which has been determined by nature with regard to the use of venereal actions, it follows that in this matter this sin is gravest of all. After it comes incest, which. . . is contrary to the natural respect which we owe person related to us.

With regard to the other species of lust they imply a transgression merely of that which is determined by right reason, on the presupposition, however, of natural principles. Now it is more against reason to make use of the venereal act not only with prejudice to the future offspring, but also so as to injure another person besides. Wherefore simple fornication, which is committed without injustice to another person, is the least grave among the species of lust. Then, it is a greater injustice to have intercourse with a woman who is subject to another’s authority as regards the act of generation, than as regards merely her guardianship. Wherefore adultery is more grievous than seduction. And both of these are aggravated by the use of violence. Hence, rape of a virgin is graver than seduction and rape of a wife than adultery. And all these are aggravated by coming under the head of sacrilege, as stated above (10, ad 2). [15]

90
comment(s):

At first, I was wondering if she was saying she was elected because she was an "out" lesbian. On further reading, I'm thinking that all she is saying is that her being a lesbian hasn't stopped her from being elected Mayor?

The fact she brings it up at all seems to me to be too quick to give it more prominence. I'd be far more impressed if she said "The people of Kapiti have elected me to sort out their water supply, drive forward projects that will benefit the community, like transmission gully and the airport; to improve the train service into wellington; and to protect our elderly residents on retirement incomes from undue pressure on rates increases blah blah blah.

Instead its "hey I'm an out lesbian". If that's upper most on her mind, she may not last more than one term.

Fix the water supply and double track the train line, with electrification to Waikane and she may get some favourable attention.

My guess would be that if she had been campaigning with openness about her sexuality there would have been a lot of grumbling here about how she was using it or trying to corner votes through an appeal to political correctness and that it was improper.

I support Lucyna. She is absolutely right. Homosexuality is sinful and depraved and she is quite right to point it out. A person’s lifestyle points to their character.

Bill Clinton looked the American public in the eye and said “listen to me, I did not have sex with that woman”. But we know that he lied. His character and his worthiness to be the American president are intertwined.

Once upon a time we used to know this. We understood that a person’s life could not be put into compartments. The private life inevitably spills over into the public life.

American President Theodore Roosevelt put it well when he said, “”No man can lead a public career really worth leading, no man can act with rugged independence in serious crises, nor strike at great abuses, nor afford to make powerful and unscrupulous foes, if he is himself vulnerable in his private character.”An Autobiography, 1913

Lesbians are quite unlikely to molest children, unlike ranking members of the church that Lucyna belongs to. You might want to focus your effors to weed out the masses of paedophiles in the Catholic Church, Lucyna, before you start ranting about some lesbian involved in local body politics.

Anon, the Catholic Church is working to ensure there are no paedophiles in the the Church. To that end, there are now strict guidelines for not accepting homosexual men for the priesthood and just today an article popped up on my customised google news page on an investigation into homosexual priests in Italy by the Vatican.

Morality aside, which is the NZ way, I still contend that there is no story here. That she is a lesbian who happens to be a mayor is jejune when you consider Beyers in Carterton, MPs Barnett and Carter, and the general milieu of NZ - the "twenty sexual partner nation'.

In a democracy you elect people to represent you and to hopefully help establish the sort of community you want to live in.

It seems to me this woman is playing identity politics, more especially if she suddenly plays up the Lesbian aspect of her identity after her election rather than before.

Lets get real here - there are plenty of people who would choose not to vote for a candidate who was openly a member of Opus Dei and wouldn't for a second consider themselves prejudiced, intolerant or bigoted for making their choice on these grounds.

And yet we a bullied into supporting people whose lifestyles we are not in agreement with, or at least acquiescing to their demands, because not to do so is 'intolerant'.

Lucyna, why has the church for so long just moved these sexual predators around instead of going to the police? They knowlingly placed sexual predators in situations where they would have access to children. And what evidence to do you have that homosexuals are more likely to molest children than heterosexuals?

Lucyna, why has the church for so long just moved these sexual predators around instead of going to the police?

Most likely for the same reason that many schools have done the same thing. The people involved cannot comprehend the evil they are dealing with, believe it's a one off incident or think maybe it's not as bad as what the victim said.

And what evidence to do you have that homosexuals are more likely to molest children than heterosexuals?

Most of the priest sex scandals (something like 90%) were perpetrated against teen-aged boys.

Alas when religion goes into the brain, reason, logic and plain human decency goes out the window. if a gay person makes it known they are gay they are pushing it on you. If they don't make a big deal about being gay they are hiding it.

One can still be gay and celibate you know. They are still gay. However, please, please, please keep posting things like this. According to a poll by a Christian group in the US this is precisely a main reason that young people in America are becoming atheists in unprecedented numbers. They say Christians are so disgustingly antigay and obsessed with the issue that they can't stand their own church anymore and are leaving.

And since I'm an atheist I want more of this sort of thing from you believers. The Barna Group (Christians) say that Christianity is now at the lowest approval level in the US in modern times and that the numbers of young atheists has expanded in the last few years, more than doubling. They also said that about half of young Christians are now disgusted with their own church and they specifically mention your sort of comments for one of the reasons.

While I don't think people should become atheists because of this (but for rational reasons) I'll take what I can get and this sort of stuff is great at driving people out of religion. Keep up the good work girl!

Oh, by the way please don't lecture me I'm a man and women aren't supposed to lecture men according to St. Paul but to learn in silence.

"This attempt at equivalence is ridiculous. A person cannot change their race, while as any person can live in celibacy."

Jews can convert. Being Jewish is their choice, any person can live as a Christian. The equivalence exists. That said - may disagree with what you say, defend to the death etc. We all have the right to dislike anyone we like for any damn reason we like.

Thanks, Peter B. Though, a nickname is always enough for me. It's the people that are anonymous to the point where you don't know if it's the same person you've talked to before - that's what really bugs me.

Psycho Milt, Jews that convert consider themselves more Jewish than ever. The most perfect creature that God ever made was the Blessed Virgin Mary - a Jewish woman.

And, thank you to everyone else who has spoken up in support of what I've said over the past 24 hours.

To anyone that considers themselves gay that has visited this blog post - I don't hate you, far from it. I consider you trapped by your sexual desires and the expectations of society. It is a heavy burden to carry and I will pray for you tonight.

Lucyna, I admire you today more than ever. You took a brave stand here and got smashed by a crowd of the noisy minority. Homosexuals make up 3 percent of any given population but lobby for the most outrageous privileges.You are right, homosexuality is not only bad for the health (homosexuals are statistically much shorter-lived than the general population), but they are also more likely to molest children than heterosexuals according to the proportional percentages. This is, of course, not to say that all gays and lesbians molest children, just as Anon shouldn't be pounding Lucyna for the mistakes made by others in the Catholic Church. Ex-gays are mercilessly persecuted by sectors of the homosexual population for spreading the 'misconception' that homosexuals can change. They claim it's genetic when it is environmental and is therefore treatable by therapy. In other words, it's not about being a victim but making a choice.

I object to Lucyna's use of the word "depraved". Homosexuals deserve compassion rather than ostracism and denigration. Just leave them alone. Let them live their lives.

What I object to is claim often made by the pseudo liberal crowd that their sexuality makes no difference to how they do their jobs. This is a complete red herring. Of course they may do their jobs well (or not so well), as any heterosexual might.

They may well turn up every day on time, put in an energetic day's work, be exceedingly productive and achieve each day the objectives they set out to achieve. Like any heterosexual. But it is not the point.

My objection to homosexuals working in the public sector is the mindset they most associate with. That smug pseudo liberal, intolerance of anything that doesn't agree with their own progressive style. That left wing belief in big powerful government and regulation being the answer to all problems. (even problems relating to their own sexuality)

I firmly believe this is how most of them think. Not all, I concede, but by far the most of them. One only has to note the tone of any homosexual publication, or queer TV show, or read a few of the messages on any homosexual discussion group, to know that is a fact.

That's why I think its important that the public are informed if a candidate is not heterosexual. Its an indication as to how they might think, and this is I believe the most important factor in deciding whether to vote for any politician.

I don't choose politicians because I think they might do the job "well". I vote for them on the basis of how I believe they think, and homosexuals I'm sorry don't often think in a way that would enable me to support them.

'My objection to homosexuals working in the public sector is the mindset they most associate with'

'I firmly believe this is how most of them think. Not all, I concede, but by far the most of them'

'That's why I think its important that the public are informed if a candidate is not heterosexual'

Seriously, substitute the word Jew or maori and what do you have but a pile of bigoted racist nasty crap that no society should contemplate let alone take seriously.

You drivel on about Helengrad but the real 5th column is right here.

"Homosexuals make up 3 percent of any given population but lobby for the most outrageous privileges.You are right, homosexuality is not only bad for the health (homosexuals are statistically much shorter-lived than the general population), but they are also more likely to molest children than heterosexuals according to the proportional percentages."

"Seriously, substitute the word Jew or maori and what do you have but a pile of bigoted racist nasty crap that no society should contemplate let alone take seriously."

Ackers, you've always been a brainwashed moron unable to think outside the politically correct square. People like you, who cannot comprehend any concept a bit more complicated than bread and jam, are such easy meat for the propagandists.

Here's what you'd know if you had a brain you simpleton loser. Neither Jews nor Maori are defined by their political views. You will find they are as politcally diverse as any group you want to divide people into. Homosexuals tho are predominantly left wing pseudo liberal. Have I made it simple enough for you you sad contemptible politically correct moron? So indoctrianted with politically correct pseudo liberalism all you can ever come up with is infantile knee jerk crap whenever you think anyone isn't kissing homosexual arse with the same degree of fawning nauseating enthusiasm you do. Get a mind you poor dimbulb, and then get an education.

Redbaiter - you have grouped most homosexuals with the pseudo-liberal left-wing, which is your gripe. Then attack their left-wing views only, not their sexuality. Just because there is an apparent bigger overlap between gays and those of left-wing bias doesn't mean you should target their sexuality for special mention. Eg. Not all Christians are of the "Christian-right" (in fact in NZ I would say Christians are 50/50 across the left/right political spectrum).

Sean , for you to say that "not all Christians are of the Christian -right " is exactly why New Zealand is dwelling in social decay .God detests weekend Christians and false prophets .

Homosexuality is wrong and against the wishes of a God of Grace , however I am not to judge whether the disgusting antics of homosexual's is appropriate . I feel sorry for shirt lifters, as I believe it is a mental disease that only leads to the inevitable which is Aids .

They must know it is not normal and for people to call them gay is a bit like calling lemon face Helen Clark a jovial and honest person !!

Ah, Redbaiter, your conviction that your prejudice is the product of complex thought beyond us lesser mortals is touching. Perhaps you could point us simpler folk to your evidence that gays aren't diverse in their political opinions?

Dad4Justice - God doesn't want you to judge whether the "disgusting antics" of homosexuals is appropriate? Am I falling for an elaborate piss-take, or are you really this dim?

D4J - By the Christian-right I am talking about that lunatic grouping that believes in fundamentalism - a powerful lobby of Pentecostals, evangelicals and other like-minded protestants found in the US mainly. Such views are so absolute they also contribute to social decay as they are so far from being inclusive with the mainstream (where if they reached out they may make an impact). Fat chance.

As I understand it, in the eyes of the Church, homosexuality is not wrong, though homosexual acts are. There is a difference, but of course, you may disagree.

If we look at our two main parties the distribution of gays and lesbians is roughly equal, the big difference is that those in the Labour Party are out and with the exception of Chris Finlayson those in the Nats are not.

"The point is about making it a political issue. Redbaiters point is that those on the left do (e.g. Beyer, Barnett)."

You're going easy on him, Sean. His point was quite clearly that gays per se are predominantly left-wing and that's why he doesn't like them. The fact that right-wing ones (for obvious reasons) tend to stay in the closet seems to have passed him by.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand the phrase "attacking their sexuality". I'm not attacking anything. I 'm expressing the view that most but not all homosexuals adhere to a certain political perspective, and also that there is a homosexual political agenda, and that this is sufficient reason for any member of the public to want to know about whether a candidate is homosexual or heterosexual.

It is "permissable" to express such views isn't it, or are you one of those uneducated but well indoctrinated fellows who believes that any standpoint that challenges politically correct social mores relating to homosexuals should be silenced and that those who express such views should be sent to re-education camps?

If that is indeed what you think Sean, it would seem that many of the contributors to this thread are in agreement. How depressing it is to see such neanderthals in such numbers. What a sad little anti free speech Marxist hole this country has become since the left have controlled the education system and the country.

Here's that damn broken record again. Always the same old same old. Where's your evidence Milt that Rupert Murdoch controls every word written or spoken in his media companies?? Oh, that's right, you said you didn't need to provide evidence because it was already a well known fact, or some such self serving claptrap. (left out the speech marks this time, didn't want another fit of apoplexy)

See if you can deal with the issue Milt. If, just for the sake of the argument, you skip over your usual diversions, and accept my reasons, do you think it would be OK (or not OK) for electors to want to know the sexuality of the candidates asking for their vote??

@ Redbaiter Neither Jews nor Maori are defined by their political views. You will find they are as politcally diverse as any group you want to divide people into. Homosexuals tho are predominantly left wing pseudo liberal.

Well you could make an arguable case for most Maori being or Pacific Islanders being of a left wing slant in their voting habits, they form quite a reliable labour constituency in areas such as Manakau and the Maori seats. There are notable exceptions, ie Tamaki's Cabal.

Would you then admit that you would be unlikely to vote for a Maori or Pacific Island canditate on the face of them being likely to hold at least left wing economic sympathies ? What position would this put you in ?

If homosexuals do tend to side with Labour a bit I think it might be because National has yet to fully shrug off its history of conservative morality and reach something more like a classical liberal position. In the meantime those gay people of a more free market orientation probably feel that acceptance of their lifestyle and full recognition of them as people is of greater importance than financial policy and so perhaps somewhat reluctantly end up voting for Labour.

@Dad4JusticeThere are many other tenable theological positions other than your own, I don't actually believe them, but it doesn't mean that Sean is any less a Christian than you are unless perhaps he's Lloyd Geering in disguise (hehe).

"Well you could make an arguable case for most Maori being or Pacific Islanders being of a left wing slant in their voting habits,"

Well you could if you were pursuing the view that race mattered as much as sex. Even so, it doesn't really matter. What I am challenging is the popular view that homosexual candidates should not be asked about their sexuality because it doesn't effect how they do their job. I say that whether they do their job well is not the issue.

The issue is whether they subscribe a) to the homosexual political agenda that includes (for example) instructing schoolchildren how to think about homosexuality, (and is part of the reason why we have such knee jerk doctrinal reactions to any criticism of homosexual politics) and b) the normal left wing pseudo liberal mindset that I say prevails amongst the majority of homosexuals.

The questions are these Fergus. Should voters be entitled to know or not? Should they be criticised for asking the question? I say yes they are entitled and no they should not be criticised. I say objections to this are founded in pre-programmed thinking patterns that say no matter what the criticism, it is forbidden to confront any popular views on homosexuality because to do so is "attacking their sexuality". Politically correct cultural cringe bullshit.

What is your opinion Fergus? What is your answer to the two questions? Yes or no?

Y'know what really pisses me of is the deliberate and deceptive inclusion of subjective homosexual political points within the "classic liberal position".

This is utter crap. Propaganda, nothing more. I defy anyone promoting this view to show me text written by any of the recognised historical classic liberals that supports the homosexual propaganda offensive.

I'm not saying that the classical liberals actually support ed it, they were quite illiberal in some of their positions, probably because of the times, can't remember exactly but I think it was Milton ended one of his spiels celebrating free speech and toleration by automatically excepts Catholics from that and suggests getting rid of them.

By classical liberal, I'm using a sort of shorthand to refer to a sort of Lockean position where the state is economically uninvolved or categorically limited, free market, Smith style economics and which takes a neutral view or morality or values with equal civil rights for all individuals. If you take that historically interpretation of classical liberalism then I think equal treatment of gay people as citizens is a natural position for a contemporary classical liberal.

That said whether the state should take short term positive action to promote a previously disadvantaged group into an equal position, is a more difficult question for classical liberals. This I suspect is what you're getting at by the "homosexual propaganda offensive", should the state take any role in attempting to normalise the position of gay people as citizens ?

Depends on one's conception of freedom, the age old argument between positive and negative freedom.

I'm not sure whether people should be entitled to know, surely people's positions can be defined far more effectively from the actual planks of their platform and that is the first direction that people's questions should take. To take someone's sexuality and specify a default political position from that, even if it is the majoritarian position among that group seems like a failure to consider the political issues fully. If you reach the conclusion that they are "left - wing pseudo liberals" on the view of their convictions then fine but don't do extrapolate that from their sexuality and then demand that it be disproved. I regretfully did the same thing with some Christian people some years ago only to be shockingly and helpfully surprised.

"This I suspect is what you're getting at by the "homosexual propaganda offensive", should the state take any role in attempting to normalise the position of gay people as citizens ?"

Its why I describe myself as a Conservative rather than a Libertarian. Frankly, I'm not prepared to jump thru the doctrinal hoops that confine the Libertarian viewpoint.

I prefer the traditional Conservative approach, whereby people are free to hold their own opinions and be judged on those opinions, to act (within the law) as they wish and be judged on those actions, to say what one wishes, and to be judged on those words, and to judge the words and deeds of others in the same way.

I reserve the right to decide what I consider moral or immoral and you have that same freedom. Libertarians on the other hand say you must think a certain "approved" way. This is as bad as the socialists.

Back to the direct answer to your question- the state has no right using my money to promote fashionable views on homosexuality, and by the same token, has no right telling school children what is the correct moral position on homosexuality. This is why I am mistrustful of homosexual politicians, and why as a voter I demand the right to know if a politician asking for my vote is not heterosexual.

I am in any civilized country afforded the right to have the information I perceive I need from any candidate before I vote for them. Not what you think I need. Not what homosexuals might think I need, but what I think I need.

Look my view of homosexuality is this . It says in my Bible it is an abomination . Ok .

I am not a fit enough person to 1) Challenge the wisdom of the Bible 2) Even though I personally find homosexuality rather repulsive as a Christian who claims to walk in the step of righteousness I have no judgment call to make comments to criticize a chosen lifestyle 3)I apologize for any previous offensive comments I have had about homosexuals 4) I do like to keep things simple 5) God Bless you all

RB, 1338: Well put, I agree with your Conservative approach, particularly "I reserve the right to decide what I consider moral or immoral and you have that same freedom.".The question should be asked of all candidates.

Lucyna, congratulations for raising the issue and sticking to your guns - well done!

"Lucyna, congratulations for raising the issue and sticking to your guns - well done!"

I agree. I don't agree with her use of the word "depraved", but I admire Lucyna for having the courage to say what she wants to say. It takes more than a bit of courage to speak out against the vicious and intolerant totalitarian left today.

I was reading of Michelle Malkin yesterday, another person I admire, but the disgusting filth that the leftist cowards send her way is a sobering warning to anyone who dares to challenge them. Check out this page for an example of what lowlife contemptible scum you have to deal with when you really confront the left-

Exactly. You claim there's no stigma attached to homosexuality don't you? Apart from your hypocrisy, and your nauseating false laffter, and your stuttering, what's the problem here? After all, the politican who is the subject of this thread had no qualms with publically stating her sexual preferences.

Maybe you could try again you pathetic dodger. If voters consider such things as important, why shouldn't they know? Who the hell is a sneering, arrogant, narrow minded, trend following, lame arsed duck shoving commie clone like you to be deciding such things for other people?

See what I mean? Ackers provides such an excellent example- a dumbarse, well indoctrinated with phony ideas on tolerance, but who lacks the education to know the true meaning of "bastion" and who therefore doesn't know either how to use the word in its correct context.

This is symptomatic of a generation that knows nothing of critical thinking, doesn't know the difference between opinion and fact, and won't allow themselves to ever consider any viewpoint other than the one their pseudo liberal instructors have identified as "approved".

Bring back education. Then we might be able to have intelligent discussions on these issues. Or maybe with Ackers it would be a dead loss anyway. Seems to me he might be just too dumb to be educated.

An example of a naive but useful fool who fell over himself in his eagerness to be manipulated by the propagandising totalitarian left. Sad really, there's just so many such ignorant barbarians, intent on dragging this country back into the stone age.

"If I was a closeted faggot I can't think of a better place than the Republican Party"

A statement that to me just seems completely incoherent. First you claimed that the Republican Party was (to use your definition) "an object that affords support or defence for homosexuals." The tone of your rhetoric implies that there's some kind of problem with the Republicans tolerating homosexuality, whilst I would have sworn that was the attitude you with your limp supplication to the ideology of the politically correct were trying to encourage.

You're just totally incoherent Ackers. Take a course in elementary self expression will you, and then come back and explain exactly what it is that you're trying to say.

BTW, before you do come back you one liner dumbfuck, I suggest you make yourself aware of why a Conservative and a Republican are not necessarily the same thing.

[That's the downside of commenting on message boards. You have to deal with all kinds of half witted crap from all the knuckle dragging ignoramuses out there with an internet connection.]

I think I answered it Redbaiter, people should be able to ask, but candidates can refuse to answer equally I think, as long as they are presenting a decent range of their views then there are far better things to judge them on. Perhaps calm down a little, you're in danger of verbally frothing at the mouth.

Don't know if you're typifying the libertarian position correctly, its hard to do though partly because of the nebulousness of the word when applied politically and partly because of some of the internal contradictions of liberalism.

"Perhaps calm down a little, you're in danger of verbally frothing at the mouth."

I'm perfectly calm Fergus. I just don't agree with the idea that the conservative response to the bigotry and ignorance of the left must always be meek and apologetic, especially when one is confronted by the kind of smug supercilious garbage that Ackers is apparently limited to.

"its hard to do though partly because of the nebulousness of the word"

The word? The concept you mean. How can one be "libertarian" and demand the kind of doctrinal subservience that they advocate? Totally contradictory.

All they ever seem to do is argue amongst themselves concerning what is the perfectly correct Libertarian position. Shame really. They had some political momentum there until the objectivists became supreme. Nowadays they seem to be more naval gazingly concerned with pissant issue of homosexuality rather than developing a political message that might resonate with the man in the street.

BTW, any candidate who refused outright to answer any question I asked them could immediately kiss my vote goodbye. The biggest difficulty in choosing a politician these days is seeing beyond the rhetoric and trying to asses how that politician might act when he /she finally has the power they are seeking. Secrecy on any issue should instantly set off alarm bells.

All I was suggesting Redbaiter was that the Republican Party seems to be a natural repository for a certain type of closeted homosexual. Not being one myself I'm not sure why but your theory that most of us are left liberal pinkos doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Knowing more than a few poofters I can assure you just as many are prissy uptight queens who don't have a liberal bone in their bodies and vote accordingly.

"All I was suggesting Redbaiter was that the Republican Party seems to be a natural repository for a certain type of closeted homosexual."

Well, that is a statement that gives rise to the question- Why the hell didn't you just suggest it outright rather than post all of that garbled incoherent drivel?? As for your claim, [and leaving aside the idiotic inappropriateness of the phrase "natural repository"], one has to ask- compared to what??

How many "closeted" homosexuals have been observed in the Democrats. Many more, and adding them to the overwhelming greater number of openly queer Democrats I think you've unwittingly helped to prove my point that big government high taxing big spending welfare state anti freedom leftism is the typical home of homosexual politics.

Leaving aside the utter hypocrisy of your stance, saying on the one hand that it doesn't matter and that we shouldn't ask the question and then harshly criticising politicians who might want to keep their sexuality to themselves. What the hell do you want exactly you confused imbecile???

Redbaiter to Ackers: "First you claimed that the Republican Party was (to use your definition) "an object that affords support or defence for homosexuals." You've mistakenly reversed the meaning of his use of the word bastion - no wonder you find him incoherent.

"Maybe you could try again you pathetic dodger. If voters consider such things as important, why shouldn't they know? Who the hell is a (blah blah) like you to be deciding such things for other people?" I guess you haven't picked up on the fact it's you who's demanding other people have things decided for them. The majority of candidates didn't declare their sexuality - you find this wrong and think they should be made to, despite the fact that most voters don't seem to give a rat's ass either way. So who's backing coercion here? Why, it seems to be you, matey!

Try formulating your blather this way: "If voters consider such things as important, why shouldn't they just fucking ask? That way you're not claiming the authority to decide for candidates and voters what info they're going to have. No doubt I'm suppressing your freedom of speech again by pointing this out...

What I can't understand is this , why do homosexual supporters like the nutbars psycho , ackers , that filthy fugley etc,,,, bother trying to justify their lifestyle on a conservative blog ?? Why do they bother , what nillers ! I don't post on satanic blogs, so why are these creeps here polluting this blog ? I can't understand this ??

You must be sad boring individuals without a meaningful life . Get a hobby you silly socialist idiots . I am a republican candidate in the next election and we don't like no tricky business from foolish left wing- guilty feeling turnip suckers .

"You've mistakenly reversed the meaning of his use of the word bastion - no wonder you find him incoherent."

Idiot. He used the word without knowing what the hell it meant. He's an illiterate clown and you're hardly any better with your screwed up partisan allegations that never bear the slightest resemblance to reality..

"you find this wrong and think they should be made to"

Never said this. You are a hopeless non-comprehending commie moron and your ignorance and prejudice is a constant barrier to discerning what other posters are really saying.

"most voters don't seem to give a rat's ass"

But if they did it would mean you'd be wrong? Here we go again. Same old baseless assertions. "most" pfffftt.. how the damn hell would you know????Just like "everyone knows" that its a fact that Murdoch controls every word spoken or written in his media empire. You're a hopeless bigot Milt who couldn't frame an argument if your miserable life depended upon it.

"Try formulating your blather this way"

Incoherent rubbish Milt. Don't know what the hell you're trying to say. Why don't you just try and answer the questions I asked of Fergus? It might provoke some thinking that relates to reality.

Zen, what I'm objecting to is the assertion that if a male or female politician, or someone wanting to be one, is asking for votes from the public, their sexual preference is something that voters should not be concerned about.

I object on two grounds- 1) I strongly disagree with the politically correct mantra chanted by Milt and Ackers that one shouldn't dare mention sexual preference as it has no bearing on how politicians "do their job". That's balls, and I've explained why I think this above. ..and 2) Who the hell are they to tell me what I should or should not be considering when I'm deciding who to vote for???? I'll decide MYSELF on whatever damn grounds I think are relevant and important, and not suffer the criticism of arrogant knuckle dragging illiterate fuckwits like them, spiritless socialist automatons who are so certain that they know best what is good for everyone else.

These limp wristed trend following commies try to dominate political discourse in NZ by heaping scorn and vilification upon anyone who dares to voice an opinion or view that they don't approve of (as Lucyna knows well enough). To hell with these bullying anti free speech scum.

I'm sick of them and their intolerance for views that don't concur with their politically correct rubbish. I'm sick of them and their no argument assertions. I'm sick of their arrogance in commanding that we must think and do as they direct merely because in their shallow narrow minds they represent some all-wise all-knowing entity they refer to as the majority. Fuck em. We have to resist these totalitarian socialist bastards much more strongly.

Hi Redbaiter. I agree. Psycho (hi there PM) said it was up to the voter to ask a lot of questions. Fair point, but that made me wonder how much disclosure should also be provided. Thus the 'out loud' musing.

Rowan's comments after the election seemed to be more about her being a Lesbian than about the job she was elected to do. She even implied that she campaigned as an out lesbian, and yet Lucyna hadn't heard that until the front page news. Actually, neither had I but that seemed to be because the local electioneering consisted of a few billboards and not much else.

Admittedly, I think GayNZ and the press are probably more interested in pushing this for their own purposes than Jenny is, and no doubt they promoted her comments to the front page and may have ignored other issues she wanted to raise.

Even so, I agree with you that more disclosure is required for people to make informed decisions.

Perhaps this issue is easier to see with the case of pedophilia. Most people seem to agree this is depraved behaviour. Should the legal age of consent be lowered to 12, and adult men groom and form sexual relationships with 12 year olds, people will be arguing "its legal, so get used to it". That appears to be an important step in the process of building acceptability within society.

I don't care how legal such activity is, I would never vote for such an immoral, depraved individual and I would maintain my right to form my own opinions based on my own moral framework.

One day, some-one is going to call me bigoted for holding that opinion. Maybe they will even today?

Fair enuff Luce, you say what you like in the words you want to, and don't worry about knee jerk reactions from the likes of PC junkies like myself:) I admire so much that you dare to be different. Swimming against the socialist tide can often be a socially stressful choice. (but its amazing how many people express their agreement once you do dare to voice an opinion outside of the PC guidelines.)

I give up. You seem to be berating some phantom Milt who only exists in your own head, Redbaiter.

Zen, if it's not up to the voter to ask, what then? I was teasing Redbaiter with my statutory declaration form, but isn't compulsory disclosure the only option if you don't want to leave it to the voter to ask?

It would be interesting to see how that worked out, actually. If in-the-closet conservative gays started making statutory declarations of heterosexuality when standing for office, private investigators would soon be doing a roaring trade...

"You seem to be berating some phantom Milt who only exists in your own head, Redbaiter."

Milt, all I have to go on is what you write here, and I have imagined none of that. I'm prepared to admit that at heart you may be an extremely decent person who only wants the best for his family, but your politics stink to high heaven.

"isn't compulsory disclosure the only option"

Sigh.. Again, I understand why you see quitting as the best option. Hopeless.

"Milt, all I have to go on is what you write here, and I have imagined none of that."Imagined it, no. Completely failed to understand it (and Ackers for that matter), yes. Oddly enough, other commenters here seem to be able to understand what I write, so yes, it is you. Please don't hold me accountable for your poor reading comprehension.

What's to fail to understand? You're a knee jerk leftist who thinks that anyone who doesn't subscribe to current PC mores relating to homosexuality should be sent to the gulags and re-educated. You don't say it of course, but that's the kind of event that has historically developed from mindsets such as yours.

Fuck off Milt, I'll think and say what I like, about homosexuality or anything, and I don't give a damn whether you and your jack booted thought police mates like Ackers approve of it or not. In fact the more I can piss people like you off, and make you whinge and complain, the better I like it.

What's really funny is the way you sad commies profess to be laffing, and try so hard to project that image, at the same time as you use words and phrases that normally convey anger. You don't know what the fuck to do if you're called on your bullshit and your attempts to intimidate do you you pathetic mungbeans...???